Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 11

For people to be train to be a nurse

how old is people to generally be train to be a nurse or one of those doctors. Do people train to have a career after they graduate four-year university or they get train (forinstance to be a nurse or one of doctors) at the last year of their four year university--69.229.108.245 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Many doctors and nurses go straight through from grade school to high school to college to become a nurse, or college to medical school to be a doctor. But much older persons sometimes get the education to be a nurse or doctor. Someone in his 30's or older can study to be a nurse or a doctor.Customs may vary by country. Types of nurses, and amount of education required, vary by country. See Physician, Medical education, Nurse, and Nurse education. Edison (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There are different kinds of doctors and different kinds of nurses. For example, in the U.S. a person can earn an associate degree in nursing (typically two years of full-time study) a bachelor's degree in nursing (typically four years), or a master's degree, after which he or she can take the state's licensing exam to become a registered nurse. In addition there are Licensed practical nurses, nurse practitioners, and other specialties. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When I trained most of my peers when straight from the Lycée (high school / Sixth Form). However, I did an LLB in English Law and German Law first (big mistake but that's another story). I've read recently estimates on the BBC that in the UK only 1/3 of students persuing higher education now fall into the once typical 18-22 category (I can get the ref if necessary), and as illustrated by this [1] story, anyone can train to be a doctor. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with the basic language skills necessary to succeed at university, anyway. The OP doesn't appear to have those skills, so needs to concentrate on learning them before worrying about how to go into medicine. --Tango (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Depending on whether they intend to be a nurse in an English speaking country and if they are literate in another language, this may not apply. Googlemeister (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of former royalty

What are the current day to day lives of former members of country in which their monarchy's have been abolished? I am mostly wondering about the former German kingdoms, duchies, and principalities that were abolished after WWI. It seems unlikely they can persue anything related to goverment, since most Democracy actually exile the former royal families, or continue to wait for restoration of their monarchy.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is an exception. Algebraist 07:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are independently wealthy. However, according to the September 2003 issue of Vanity Fair: Crown Prince Kardam of Bulgaria was a senior PR officer for Spanish phone provide Telefonica Moviles; Prince Emanuele Filiberto of Italy has been a hedge-fund manager, a soccer commentator, and a fruit salesman; Prince Jean of France was a senior banker; Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece was another hedge-fund manager; his wife, Princess Marie-Chantal, was a children's clothing designer; Archduke Karl of Austria has been an MEP (like his father, the Archduke Otto), a TV presenter, and is the director-general of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation; Prince Pedro of Bourbon-Two-Sicilies was an agricultural engineer; Grand Duke George of Russia was PA to a vice-president of the European Commission; Princess Mafalda of Hesse was a painter, but was taking a break to bring up her children; Prince Nikolaos of Greece was working as PA to his father, ex-King Constantine, but had also worked for NatWest Bank and for Fox News; Prince Kyril of Bulgaria was an executive in an asset-management company; his wife, Princess Rosario, ran an art consultancy and had previously been a fashion promoter; Princess Olga of Greece was a biologist specialising in tropical moths; Princess Bianca of Savoy-Aosta worked for Christie's Auctioneers; and Luis-Alfonso de Borbon, the legitimist pretender to the French throne, was an asset manager for BNP Paribas. Of those without formal occupations, many are active in charitable work; a few (Prince Bernhard of Baden, for example) concern themselves with nothing more than the ancestral estates and the local horse-race meeting. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover was in film production, but upon his father's death, he inherited large amounts of money and property, so probably doesn't work in that field any more. Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a lawyer specializing in wealth management. Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen is a banker. Otto von Habsburg is a politician and former Member of the European Parliament. Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, Otto's son, is a former game show host, Member of the European Parliament, and Director General of Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. Otto's younger son, Archduke Georg of Austria, is President of the Hungarian Red Cross and is a Hungarian diplomat. The Marquesses of Milford Haven are the descendants of the Royal House of Battenberg. Karl Friedrich, Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern is a musician. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think it's really cool that Karl Friedrich is lead singer of a jazz band.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you call temperature sensitive cloth/embroidery/manufacturing...?

In the late 1980s, a popular fad was temperature sensitive clothing, like a shirt is blue, but if you hold your thumb over it, your body heat turns it pink. What is this process called? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What you're thinking of is Hypercolor and it's all to do with Thermochromism apparently. Coincidentally I was looking through old family photos the other day and chuckling at a photo of me and my brother both wearing one of these t-shirts. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the term for using something as a tool outside intended use?

Moved to language desk

Sexual abuse: trauma in adults and children

Since children have no sexuality, shouldn't a sexual abuse on them (of any kind) leave a lessen trauma than a sexual abuse of an adult, who knows what is happening and that this is not the way it is? Intuitively, I know that this makes no sense, but why is it exactly the opposite?--Quest09 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any general pattern in terms of the relationship between the age of the victim and the extent of trauma. I think children are more strenuously protected from sexual abuse because of their inability to consent or to have full understanding of what happens. However, one way in which these things may be worse for children is precisely because of the lack of understanding, and consequent difficulty of rationalising. Abusers may also use positions of power to take advantage of children, which leads to a distorted view of non-sexual human relations, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Children have to grow at their own rate, in all matters in life, including sexuality. Sexual abuse deprives them of that right and, to use a good metaphor, typically screws up their life. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, children do have their own sexuality. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere when you hit puberty. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that sexual maturation requires a clean slate, not a marred slate. Children grow into the adult that they will be. The experience (the sexual abuse) will tend to arise in memory whenever the maturing person is contemplating what sort of adult he or she would like to be. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

. Tempshill (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that any traumatic experience will generally be more harmful to a child than an adult, for two reasons. A child hasn't learned the "coping methods" that an adult has (there's probably a better word for it). Also, an adult has more experience and will be able to understand the situation better, to put in context so to speak, and as I understand it, that will help reduce the effect of trauma. Sjö (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it asserted that minors are not traumatized by sex unless they feel coerced or authority figures freak out about it. I imagine that one or the other usually happens. —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Information about Evan John, author.

Evan John was a classically educated english author whose works include "Time In The East" published in 1946. That book mentions that an earlier book of his, an historical novel, was so successful that he bought a farmhouse in the home counties on its proceeds. Yet I can find nothing about him on the internet. Can anyone provide any more information about him and his works please? 89.240.199.45 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Evan John was a pseudonym of sorts. His full name was Evan John Simpson. A google search throws up a few titbits of information, but not a whole pile. Fribbler (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Works I could find by Evan John:

• Time table for victory, a brief and popular account of the railways & railway-owned dockyards of Great Britain & Northern Ireland during the Six Years' War, 1939-45, by Evan John [pseud] 1947
• Lofoten letter, by Evan John [pseud.] 1941
• Crippled splendour, a novel, by Evan John [pseud.] 1938
• Kings' march, a play of the first Christmas, by Evan John [pseud.] 1937
• Time after earthquake; an adventure among Greek islands in August 1953, by Evan John [pseud.] 1954
• Prelude to massacre, historical incident in one act, by Evan John [pseud.] 1937
• Ride home tomorrow; the chronicle of a crusader newly set forth by Evan John [pseud.] 1950
• Time in the East, an entertainment by Evan John [pseud.] With coloured illustrations by the author. 1946
• King Charles I, by Evan John [pseud.] 1933
• Ride home tommorrow; the chronicle of a crusader newly set forth by Evan John [pseud.] 1950
• Kings' masque, by Evan John [pseud.] 1941

Weepy.Moyer (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Good searching! Fribbler (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

also this (from an internet article about the sculptor): "Memorial tablet to Evan John In Portland stone and on the north wall of St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Checkendon, Oxfordshire. Captain Evan John Simpson was a writer on religious and esoteric subjects and had shared Kennington’s interest in spiritual matters since the late 1930s. Simpson committed suicide on 27th December 1953 aged 52. He was a lay reader at the church and lived in Checkendon near to Kennington. During the Second World War Simpson was in Special Operations and wrote a book 'Lofoten Letters' (Heinemann, 1941) about his experiences of the raid on the Norwegian Loftoten islands on 4 March 1941 (Operation Claymore). "

Evan John spent time in the Middle East during the Second World War. He subsequently wrote 'The Darkness' a novel written in the form of letters and 'official' documents from the days immediately after the Resurrection of Christ. This was published by Heinemann in 1955 and I hold a (borrowed) copy in my hand as I write. The dust cover bears the following statement: The late Evan John had many gifts. Actor, historian, novelist, he died after recording unforgettably the aftermath of the Ionian earthquake in 1953. in The Darkness he fills in what he has called the negative aspect of the Crucifixion, the Darkness which the Light astonished. Letters, secret service documents, minutes, and reports from spies discuss and annotate the civil and military sequels of the execution of the obscure Galilean agitator and the disapppearance of his body from the sepulchre where it was, by special permission, buried. Pontius Pilate, Nicodemus, Herod, his wife, Joseph of Arimathea, and a gallery of minor figures exchange news and comments. The Sanhedrin bluffs and evades, officers gossip, women threaten and cajole. By a new approach and a bold use of modern idioms evan Jones throws 'historical events ... far more important then any others in the course of human history' into new relief, and makes one ponder them with a fresh sense of their tremendous impact.

On the back of the dust cover John Connell of The Evening News writes..... Evan John was a novelist of high calibre who will be most sadly missed.

study of racism in young children

couple of years back, i read an article in readers digest, about a study on some white american children age about six. they show the children photos of white and black people, then ask the children questions like "one of them kicks their dog when he comes home, who is it?" the children pointed to the black people most of the time. the article argues that racism is biological.

please i need more information about the study and other studies like that which show that racism is biological. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.241 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion that racism is biological from that kind of test is rubbish. A 6 year old does not live in a cultural vacuum and are exposed to the views of their parents, and TV and other things that would influence the results. Googlemeister (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thurgood Marshall used a similar test in Brown vs. Board of Education, but reached a different conclusion to (ahem) Reader's Digest. His test helped convince the courts that racism was taught early to both perpetrators and victims, not that it was "biological". You might be interested in our article on scientific racism, which has lots of crackpots throughout history trying to justify racism in various forms. --Sean 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Young children usually share the views of their parents, that includes racist views. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most famous and often-repeated study involved dolls (i.e. whether children would prefer to play with a black doll or a white doll). See Kenneth and Mamie Clark... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds sort of like the experiment first tried by Jane Elliott in 1968 with her class of third graders, before she created the famous "blue-eyed/brown-eyed" experiment. Note that this is explicit in finding that racism is learned, so it may not be it. - BanyanTree 07:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Dubček - western propaganda about this once leader of Czecheslovakia?

I am old enough to remember his leadership being terminated when the Russians invaded the country. The news about him that I recall hearing or reading in Britain was that he was treated very badly (beaten up, imprisoned for a long time, etc) and then forced to work as a manual worker on the railways. Yet the Wikipedia article says he continued to live in comfort and even continued his political career. Did I just imagine the reports about him as a manual worker, or was this actual western propaganda that I had been exposed to? I thought the West was not supposed to do propaganda! 89.240.199.45 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Dubcek, but the idea that the west does not "do propanganda" is itself propaganda. Of course all countries issue propaganda. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be in Hope Dies Last The Autobiography of Alexander Dubcek by Alexander Dubcek 83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When happy crowds in Czechoslovakia chanted "Dubček, Dubček, Dubček.." it had kind of a rock beat. Edison (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What have the eastern terrorists got against the west?

What are the reasons for the hostility of eastern terrorists towards the west please? In the minds of the terrorists themselves, from their perspective. 89.240.199.45 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean by the east? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.241 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Middle East, the primary, primary, primary thing they have against the West, the thing that moves them to violence (rather than just being pissy), is Israel. There's a long, long history there, but the fact that the West supports Israel appears to be the issue that drives the most up the wall. Sure, they dislike the decadence and the values, but it's the Israel issue that moves them to bombing, every time. If by east you mean, say, those in Indonesia, that's probably a very different story (one I know a lot less well). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

However, Osama bin Laden himself really doesn't care very much about Israel personally, and the presence U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia as a result of the first Gulf War was far more of a motivating factor for him to start his terrorist career than anything to do with Palestine... AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See History of terrorism and then work your way through the relevant articles. It is not a simple reason, each terrorist group will have potentially different reasons and also potentialy overlapping reasons. Granted the Israel conflict is quite large, but beyond that there is so much extra as well.194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Israel" answer is all too easy here, but you can work out for yourself if it is accurate.

Consider this: if Iran blew up Israel tomorrow with a couple of nuclear bombs (it's a very small country, so it wouldn't take too many), would Al Qaeda and their friends pack up their terrorist manuals and go back to peaceful ways?

Some more questions for you... when the Muslim armies reached the gates of Vienna (in Austria, ie the heart of Europe) in 1529 or again in 1683, did it bother them that the State of Israel was still c.400 and c.270 years away from being founded? (In fact, the land that makes up Israel today was controlled by Muslims in those days)

Muslim armies reached the gates of Vienna - well, why not say the army of the Ottoman Empire? Its you who want to make it a Muslims vs Christians case (besides: Hungarian protestants gave the idea that Vienna would be an easy target and France supported the aggression once it came - both hated Vienna. The real question is: can it be that the previous speaker is a secret aggressor, downloading his personal aggression into another conflict to make his point - its not him but the Muslims. (Who can play this argumentative game with changing roles: Christians organised the crusades and have been the first aggressors). --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a complex issue and, like 194 says, it's a convenient political point used by various different parties to blame it all on Israel. Yes, the Arab-Israel conflict is a cause of Islamic terrorism. But it is not the cause. You'll need to do a lot of reading (Jihad is a good place to start) to begin to understand. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to say there's one reason. But there are reasons to dislike someone and there are reasons to plan expensive, dangerous, and difficult plans to destroy them. The Israel question has been the thing that consistently pushes these people over the edge; it's the thing they always cite first as to what is pissing them off, it's the thing they are able to use to recruit others to their cause. It is the center of their political cosmology, in a way that unites groups that otherwise would have strong, strong cause to fight amongst each other more often.

If Israel was gone tomorrow, I suspect they would get wrapped up in more local concerns (Shiites vs. Sunnis and all that) and bother a lot less with the West. They wouldn't become peaceful, but they wouldn't be trying to blow up New York and London. (And I'm not, in case it isn't clear, trying to say they are right or wrong on this point, or that it is Israel's "fault" — but it is what clearly motivates them to that sort of long-range violence.)

As for Vienna—obviously one is only trying to talk about the more recent generations of this. I don't, in fact, believe that people actually care a whole lot about violence 400 years ago. It's the here-and-now that gets groups of people mobilized, not Medieval legacies. (Obviously Medieval legacies can resonate through the here-and-now, which is why using Crusade language to talk about Western incursions into the Middle East today is not so bright.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's to misunderstand Islamic fundamentalism, which seeks to unite the world under Sharia law and sees America (and to a lesser extent other Western countries) as the great Satan (my term) for its materialism and spiritual corruption entirely aside from any geopolitics. The relevance of Vienna is that they hark back to the expansions under Muhammed and Suleimann etc as golden ages they would like to recreate. Sadly for them, they dont have the mass armies under their control (yet) to achieve these aims, so small bands or solo terrorists do their work for now. Israel's existence has been little hindrance to the Shia Sunni tensions (the Iran Iraq conflicts post date Israel's creation) so that's no answer either. Israel is used as a recruiting sergeant, but so are Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia and all kinds of other issues. If you believe Israel's the main cause, you've been taken in by the anti Israel propaganda. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do disagree. The West becomes a major target because of its support of Israel. If it were not for that, it would not be their largest target—there are lots of more important local targets (the dictatorship in Egypt, for example; the Baathists, for example). Again, why attack the West is the question. I don't see a generalized jihad as actually motivating more than a handful of folk. The immediate reason that they are attacking the West and what motivates them to go through all the trouble of doing it is the Israeli issue. No, I don't see the Crusades as actually being that relevant here except in the most vague way. People don't get up every day and say, "gosh, something happened 600 years ago, I'll go die because of that." Politics are local; history is local. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not sure where you're going with the comparison with Vienna. That was a case of conquest, of a nation's army advancing to take and hold territory. It isn't "terrorism" in anything but the loosest sense of the word, and I don't see how you would use it to describe the battle of Vienna any more than you would to describe the Crusades, or indeed any military action in history. Further, unless I'm mistaken, the medieval expansion of the Arab world was a largely secular affair, separating it yet further from Islamic terrorism we see today. TastyCakes (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Crusades and the Ottoman wars in the 16th/17th centuries don't really have anything to do with terrorism, although al-Qaeda (and presumably other groups) use crusading vocabulary all the time, as in, literally every single time they make a public statement. Israel is always considered to be a crusader state or run by crusaders or whatever, since it happens to occupy the same territory as the actual crusader states did. But I really doubt al-Qaeda has any concern for Israel in particular; other groups like Hamas or Hezbollah certainly do, but bin Laden or Zawahari or anyone from al-Qaeda is always going on and on about American military bases in Saudi Arabia and bad influences from American culture in general. Most of the time it doesn't look like they even know what they want to complain about. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I first have to agree with TastyCakes here. To blame it all on Islamic fundamentalism and the desire to unite the world under Sharia law is extremely simplistic. The 'recruting tools' are a key part of the motivation particularly of the foot soldiers (although I think the leaders are often quite complicated characters too). This means Israel and also the other issues including Western's involvement in a number of Arab countries (nevermind that the leaders want them there). To underestimate the degree of anger there is about these issues is a serious flaw. Do you really think the young professionals who are perpetrators of a number of the recent attacks in the Western world, e.g. the 7 July 2005 London bombings had as their primary goal to bring Sharia law to the world? In the case of the 7/7 attacks, one of them at least IIRC had a very outspoken wife (who refused to believe her husband was responsible), which hardly fits with the profile people like to make of terrorists wanting to subjugate all women, who should be subordinate. Was the womanising Khalid Sheik Mohammed a hypocrite and accepted because he was beneficial or did in fact he and many people not care because they're desires weren't to bring Sharia law to the world? I agree with Dweller that it's overtly simplistic to subscribe their motives to one factor, but this includes the motive Dweller is mentioning. Their reasons vary and are often likely a complex combination of factors to put it down to any one thing is seriously flawed. And what 98 said is also likely true. For many, the various grievances particularly Israel is often the tipping point. But I partly agree with Dweller in that now that all these issues are there, if the US et al were to pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq and other Arab nations, withdraw their support for Israel etc these grievance are not going to magically go away (but that's quite different from saying things would be very different if they were never there). Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While I generally agree, don't forget that there are many interpretations of Sharia law. Every interpretation I've heard of differentiates between men and women and, in many views, give women a raw deal, but they don't neccesarily lead to the extreme subjugation you imply. For example, in Iran, where Sharia courts regulate many areas of life, some women hold prominent positions and have a good quality of life. I don't see why the terrorist you mention couldn't have supported Sharia law in principle. Warofdreams talk 17:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Islamic revival is also an important piece of the picture. TastyCakes (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Another reason is ISLAMOPHOBIA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.61.27 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

59, do you seriously think that fear of Muslims increases terrorism more than Islamic terrorism increases the fear of Muslims? --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually 59 has a good point. Yes Islamic terrorism increases the fear of Muslims but that's largely irrelevant since we aren't discussing why people fear Muslims. But the perception that Islamophobia is rife increases the belief of many Muslims that the Western world hates them and wants to destroy Islam so they have no choice but to fight back. It's a sort of vicious cycle that feeds into the 'clash of cultures' that everyone likes to talk about, except that for many on the Muslim side the culture they think about is often not so much a secular immoral one (which they may worry about but is not necessarily their primary concern) but a Judeo-Christian one intent on destroying Islam. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

By Islamophobia, I mean - for example, the Muhammad cartoons and Fitna led to violence and demonstrations. And discrimination against Muslims in Western countries may prompt them to turn to extremism and eventually terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.176 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian aggressiveness and Muslim aggressiveness inevitably clash, and as it happens the Holy Land is a major focal point of that clash. The notion that Muslim extremists "hate the west" is propaganda. It's a battle that goes back hundreds of years, and the nation of Israel is just a part of the picture. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, didn't you get the talking points memo? Of course they don't hate the west. What they hate is freedom. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I once heard Bob Novak say there is too much freedom in America, so I'll let you ponder the significance of that line of thought. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm always amazed how obtuse people can get over this question. They don't hate our freedom, they hate our power. The western nations, these days most particularly America but before that Britain, have and exercise a great deal of military, diplomatic and economic power, and there are people who resent that and think that power should belong to them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Related to that, note that the European and to a shorter extent North American powers have a long history of interfering in other countries. Just look at the 20th century history of Iran. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in studying this further then just some wiki opinions, i'd recommend reading End of Faith by Sam Harris. Especially the chapter "The problem with islam". He's quite edgy and I wasn't agreeing with him 100%, but he does make a lot of interesting points. Vespine (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A possible influence of the West on Islamic fundamentalism is described in The Last Mughal by William Dalrymple (ISBN 074758639X). Dalrymple speculates that the increasing popularity of 19th century Presbyterian notions of divinely-bestowed superiority over the natives, and the disaster of the Second Indian Mutiny of 1857 (and subsequent collapse of the Mughal state) are together the triggers that led to the rise of Wahhabi Islam's popularity.

The theory is only addressed in the last 3 pages of the ca. 600-page book, and I am not sufficiently informed to have an opinion on the merits of the argument. But its a worthwhile and engaging read even if the last few pages are ignored, and it is a hint of just how complex the "why do easterners hate the west"-issues might be. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Two things 1) The Ottoman attacks on Vienna are in no way parallel to modern Islamist-based terrorist groups. Ottoman Turkey was a largely Europeanized state; it would be better to think of the Islamic aspect of them as secondary compared to the fact that they were a pre-modern state in the European sphere, and just like Russia and Austria and France and lots of other European states, they made land grabs and went to war with the other European states of the day. Islam was an important factor, but not the key factor, in understanding the actions of Ottoman Turkey. Certainly, earlier Islamic attacks on Europe were missionary-driven, but not by the 16th and 17th centuries. Those moves were almost purely political. 2) I have heard the arguement that one can trace the fundementalist streak in Islam that leads to the modern terrorist movement all the way back to the 13th century fall of Baghdad to the Mongols, whereby Islam lost its political and cultural center, which led to the fragmentation of Islamic culture, and the thriving of small, decentralized zealous groups. These groups have never been in the majority in Islam, but have a habit of stirring up trouble disproportionate to their size and representation within Islam (cf Hashshashin for an older group). --Jayron32 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's about theft. Persians might tend to feel that oil is being taken from their land, to line the pocketbooks of oil oligarchs, provide a secure perch for men of questionable integrity within the halls of American power, and put Big Macs in the mouths of a sometimes-detested American populace. They're not going to strictly mind this when it's being supported by Texas oil, of course. They might preach against the evils of America, but there's no need to fly planes into buildings until it gets personal, until the latent wealth of their land starts getting drained. Vranak (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are aware, yes, that Persians refer to Iranians specifically? And that Iranians had nothing to do with 9/11? The Iranian situation is somewhat different than the al Qaeda situation, in general. Lumping these groups together is not cognitively very productive... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in my mind it doesn't. I conscientiously use the term 'Persians' to mean 'Muslim from the Middle east region' because just about every alternative has been at least somewhat soiled in the minds of Westerners. Iran = crazies with atomic ambitions. Arab = not like us. 'Persian' seems to have a bit more pedigree, even if it does have a stricter meaning in some circles. Vranak (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding right... Persians and Arabs are distinct and mutually exclusive. You may as well say "I'll call everyone from the Middle East 'Jews' because I don't like the word 'Arab' or 'Persian'". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with loaded language? Western media puts 'Iran' and 'nuclear' together so often than 'Iran' has become codeword for 'crazies', just like 'China' has become code for 'unprincipled'. I'd rather be wrong on a technicality than morally. Vranak (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's no better than the people who think Persians are Arabs, or all Muslims are Arabs, or all Arabs are Muslims, or whatever other ignorant thing people believe. How does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to go on about this Vranak, but I just don't understand your point of view. So "Iranian" sounds loaded to you, so you replace it with "Persian", that makes sense - Persians are Iranians.

But Iranians are not Arabs, and Persians are not Arabs, and Arabs are not Persians. You can't stretch a term to cover things which are distinct just because you don't like the name of those things - it's not a technicality. It's actually wrong. I'm going to assume from your user page that you are Canadian. Would it work for me to call all North Americans "Canadian", because "American" has too many negative connotations? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I might quibble that plenty of people in Afghanistan speak Persian. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

al Qaeda is pretty straightforward about its goals. As our article points out, "Al-Qaeda's objectives include the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate." They are not trying to take over the world, they are not trying to destroy America, they are trying to influence America into withdrawing from influencing Middle Eastern countries. They see the primary point of influence to be Israel, at the moment. Secondarily are of course Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. If the US suddenly stopped supporting Israel and pulled out of the Middle East, they would probably focus on taking down the governments in the Middle East that stand between them and their caliphate (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.). I think that ascribing these ancient grievances to them as being the prime motivators, rather than part of the narrative they tell to give themselves legitimacy (in the same way that the US tells its own narratives about what it has been doing for 300 years, facts be damned), is to make a fundamental analytical error. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which makes the comparison of 9/11 with Pearl Harbor all the more appropriate. Japan was trying to keep us out of the Pacific Rim so they could continue to expand their empire. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did the wealth of the British royal family come from?

How did they acquire their wealth originally? None of them have any connections with industry so they did not make it as entrepreneurs. I'm wondering if they acquired it by force, by ways that would now be considered illegal. 89.240.199.45 (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely various taxes helped?!--Leon (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And these days they "earn" their crust from the Civil list. Fribbler (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The usual way the nobility acquired wealth in a pre-modern society - collecting rent, taxes, and other money from their vast landholdings. The British royal family still personally owns huge chunks of land, and in an abstract legal sense they own the entire Commonwealth (or at least the countries where the Queen is the head of state). Is feudalism illegal? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I can see the queen technically owning crown land in the commonwealth, but I don't think the government really "owns" the countries so I don't see how the head of state could own them (she certainly doesn't make any money off of them, and I doubt it's taken into account when working out the Royal Family's net worth). TastyCakes (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought all the land was technically "Crown land", at least as a legal fiction. (Of course, in reality, I am a serf of the bank...) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm in Canada, I'm pretty sure most municipal areas and many farm areas are not crown land, but there are vast "wilderness areas" that are. The crown also owns most of the mineral rights in Western Canada, except for areas granted to the very earliest Europeans in the area, the railroads being the largest original holders I believe. A lot of crown land and these mineral rights generate a lot of money (oil and gas, mining, logging etc), so if it were to be considered the queen's it would likely make her immensely rich, on paper. TastyCakes (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Feudalism is too imprecise a term to be illegal, but there haven't been any serfs in the UK since 1799, so the system wouldn't really work. Warofdreams talk 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sark, a small Island off the coast of Normandy, just abolished feudalism last year.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Plastics. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They got a lot of gold and silver from the Americas. Then, they profited off colonialism. There was a middle-man, of course. A "company" would do all the work and pay a tax to the government. Because the military was often necessary to protect the colonies, the companies were willing to pay a large tax to the government for apt protection. -- kainaw™ 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They also got so many days of free labour from the serfs who lived on their land and would be able to sell the agricultural goods produced in their markets if they so chose. Also, don't forget that the king was powerful, so bribes were not uncommon when asking for a favor from him. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While colonialism undoubtedly didn't hurt the British Royal Families finances, I think if you look at their worth now a lot of it is in art collections and land, neither of which seem derived from colonialism or exploitation. I think of greater direct financial benefit of the Royal family was the explosion of wealth, productivity and consequently land values during the industrial revolution (and to an extent the colonies that it allowed). TastyCakes (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that monarchs haven't always had lots of money - profligate monarchs have often run up substantial debts. But some imaginative taxation usually sorted that out, provided that it was authorised by Parliament. Warofdreams talk 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Until about 1760, there was no real distinction between the government budget and the king's personal wealth. After 1760, the royal family was substantially exempt from taxes, and received periodic subsidies. In the last century or so, the immunity from taxes has apparently been the most critical factor -- in the late 19th century, there were a number of aristocratic families (such as the Duke of Westminster) in Britain with wealth and land roughly comparable to the royal family, but since then Death duties and other taxation have taken a significant toll on most of them... AnonMoos (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So in summary, in past centuries the royals had lots of land and the power to raise taxes, plus until a few years ago exemption from paying any taxes themselves. But how did they get the power and the land in the first place? Did they do in the past the sort of thing that Saaam Hussein did more recently? As an example the present British royal line, the Sax-German-Whatsits? Sidenote - the current royals have a lot of public property which the treat as their own, such as Buckingham Palace where they stay rent and tax free. It is like them staying in a series of the most luxurious private hotels in the world, all at public expense. They also own thmselves other palaces, but one wonders where they got the money to pay for them in the first place. 89.241.45.205 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're asking how the royals got control of England. My low-brow understanding is that William the Conqueror and a bunch of his followers invaded from France in 1066, won the Battle of Hastings whereupon William declared himself king and owner of the whole country, which he inventoried in the Domesday Book and carved up into estates for his nobles and descendants, and they've been carving it up further and passing parts down generationally ever since. The fee tail was an attempt to stop the carving process in parts of the middle ages, which kept the big estates consolidated for a few centuries longer than they otherwise might have been. Surely someone who actually knows some history can find a ton of mistakes in what I've said, though. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To generalise, in the feudal system, the legal structure is that the sovereign owns everything, and all others (the nobles and the commoners) take their possessions as tenants of the sovereign. So, supposing a dynasty is not interrupted, then an absolutist feudal sovereign, being legally the government, 1) owns any land (and certain other property) in the country which has not been granted to a subject; 2) can appropriate at any time any of the property which the sovereign has previously granted to a subject; and 3) acquires new land and other property through, for example, conquest.

Modern sovereign come into possession of two distinct pools of assets - that which belongs to the sovereign ex officio, e.g. Buckingham Palace; and that which belongs to the sovereign personally. The reason for this distinction is because an individual sovereign was not always the sovereign. On a dynastic level, a king might, two centuries ago, grant a piece of land to his cousin, the duke, as as his personal land. 200 years later, the land has been passed down to the duke's descendant, who happens to become queen. The queen would hold this land personally. On an individual level, the king might grant a piece of land to his son as his personal land. Twenty years later, the son becomes king, and now holds that land personally.

Of course, the way property would be "granted" is complicated by modern, constitutional systems of government, but the basic concepts, taken abstractly, still holds. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The way

See Feudalism, Colonialism, Imperialism. A great many poor people (serfs, peasants, colonists, natives of conquered lands) lived in poor housing and worked hard farming, in animal husbandry, mining, etc. so that a very few wealthy merchants, nobles and royals could have mansions built, eat fine food, buy art etc. As long as everyone "knew their station in life" things went swimmingly. Edison (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

$ from a cow

I just watched some horrible footage of some US slaughterhouses and thinking of becoming a vegan (not seriously; I'm too much of a carnivore). One of my friend's mentioned that, at least, every single part of the cattle is utilzed and profited from. So say you had a female calf, approximately how much would it cost to maintain the calf until its adult death in the slaughterhouse (assuming you are not only using it for its milk but also for its meat)? And how much an approximate profit does the slaughterhouse makes from the same cow throughout its life? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible to give a good number. The cost of feeding the animal is going to depend on if you are giving it corn, or letting it graze, or if you get it very young and have to feed it milk. Also, a female calf is not going to give you any milk until after it has a calf of its own. The value that you get from the animal also depends on market prices. Googlemeister (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You should also note that cattle raised for milk and cattle raised for meat are done completely differently. They involve different cattle breeds, and while you will keep a dairy cow for several years, usually beef cattle are slaughtered within 2 years. Googlemeister (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are not in this industry and you don't know, may I respectfully suggest that you just avoid trying to answer the question. Obviously it is possible to give a good number for anyone who is in the business. Tempshill (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Having raised cattle I can tell you that with the information given here, not knowing what kind of land they are using, what the market conditions for the inputs they are planning to use, and not know what the market conditions will be when they plan to slaughter the cow, I can tell you that they could have nothing better then a guess unless they want to sell a contract out. That of course is also not addressed. If all that is known, then a reasonable estimate could be given, but with this data, you might as well consult a random number generator. Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed to understand the industry. I apologize. Tempshill (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone can't answer "how long is a piece of string?" doesn't mean they don't know the string industry. --Sean 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but if you can't tell me what the string is made of, how much you pay the workers that run the string making machines, or how much string each machine can make a day (assuming there are several string machines with different outputs available), or how much it will cost you to rent your building, no one can give any helpful estimate of the profitability of your string factory. Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes, I was supporting your point that the question is not answerable as given. Even the world's leading stringologist cannot answer "how long is a piece of string?". --Sean 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Well, you could slaughter your calf today and only pay for the slaughter. For small operations that's usually priced per pound of meat you get back (that's called the "hanging weight", which is around 2/3 of the weight of the animal when it's alive). In my area I think it runs around 30 cents per pound for small quantities. So your question about how much it will cost to maintain until slaughter will require knowing how long you'll keep it. --Sean 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, is every part of the cattle profited from? If so, how? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Profited" or not depends on the prices they get.But nothing is discarded. The skin of course becomes leather; hooves and bones and other inedible-as-is parts are boiled down or pulverised and end up in pet food; the guts and part-digested contents end up in fertiliser.- KoolerStill (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kind of on a side note, is the term cash cow accurately derived from a cow having a high margin of profit, or some other reason? I guess is there a more generic answer to the OP like 'lots of profit' or 'profit only in a large volume of cows'? —Akrabbim^talk 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Royalty

Due to a question ask here. It would appear that many Royals are rather wealthy and well educated. This makes me ask, When most monarchies were abolished, were the families made to pay back all that they had taken from the people? If they were, have most of these made their wealth recently? If in the past they were so heavily inbred, has this not effected thier abilities to become well educated, successful people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish Habsburgs were notoriously inbred, but there are many other royal families where that's not the case. The most inbred of all time (that we know about) was probably the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, most were not required to pay everything back. Louis XVI did lose his life and everything was seized, but you can hardly say he "paid" it. Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, Constantine II of Greece kept most of his property when Greece voted to be a republic, though he gave some of his land to a non-profit foundation in exchange for being allowed to do what he liked with the rest of his possessions. Michael of Romania similarly negotiated with the communist government of Romania over what he was allowed to take, and seems to have left the country a rich man. Queen Elizabeth II of the UK has a considerable private fortune and a far larger amount of possessions which belong to the state but which she enjoys as monarch[3] so if Britain was to become a republic you can imagine she would leave with a large amount of money but most of the royal possessions, palaces, etc, would go to the state. The previous link also says the Dutch royal family owns a large stake in Royal Dutch Shell, which should keep them going if they ever find themselves out of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Inbreeding": many of us who enjoy pedigree collapse are quite fit for education.--Wetman (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly like to think so.  :) I have three consecutive generations of first cousin marriages in my ancestry. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)